Explained: Why undocumented immigrants don’t just get to the ‘back of the line’

Nadia Y. Flores-Yeffal, For the Express-News

Published 12:00 am, Saturday, February 24, 2018

Photo: Gary Coronado /TNS

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Jade Vega, 14, of Peru, peers through the fence at Friendship Park at the beach along the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, Baja Calif., on July 29, 2017. Vega, who says she is a U.S. citizen, was visiting her mother in Tijuana for the summer. less

Jade Vega, 14, of Peru, peers through the fence at Friendship Park at the beach along the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, Baja Calif., on July 29, 2017. Vega, who says she is a U.S. citizen, was visiting her ... more

Photo: Gary Coronado /TNS

Explained: Why undocumented immigrants don’t just get to the ‘back of the line’

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

“Why don’t they do it the right way, like my ancestors?” is a common refrain heard from many European-origin Americans when they’re talking about immigration.

This is easily explained. Let’s start with the history.

When the Europeans came to the U.S at the turn of the 20th century, they just had to go through Ellis Island. More than 15 million immigrants were inspected and processed at Ellis Island, and the majority were allowed to stay. Only those with mental problems, those with sickness, those who were too weak to work, or those who were considered a danger to society were sent back — a mere 2 percent of all immigrants.

Immigrants at that time — the ancestors of most Americans — didn’t have to face numerical limitations or the need to have a visa to enter the United States.

This was true until 1924, the year in which the border patrol was established. Immigrants were then required to process a visa at an American consulate before entering the U.S. In 1924, the U.S. also decided to change the immigration law to mostly favor immigration from Western Europe because those from Eastern and Southern Europe were considered “undesirables.”

After World War II, the Bracero Program was implemented. It brought up to 5 million Mexican immigrants who came to do the hard work in the fields, as there was a labor shortage.

This program lasted 22 years and ended in 1964.

In 1965, for the first time, the U.S. had a restriction on visas for the Western Hemisphere. This was the beginning of undocumented immigration. In other words, our laws created this undocumented migration flow by making it exceedingly difficult for many immigrants to come legally to the U.S.

Today, we need immigrants to work in unskilled occupations — jobs that Americans don’t want to do. Would Americans want to pick the grapes in California under a hot sun all day? Or would they want to work in poultry processing industries inside refrigerators for entire shifts?

But our immigration laws only allow for 60,000 temporary visas and only 5,000 visas for unskilled workers annually to fulfill the demand for unskilled labor. All of the rest of the work-related visas are for those who are professionals and those who possess extraordinary abilities.

OK, so what about entry through refugee status? Or family reunification?

Let’s take refugees first. Unfortunately, refugees — particularly those from Central America and Mexico — are less likely to get their cases approved in immigration courts. Only 3 percent of Salvadorans applying for refugee status were approved, compared to 14 percent of all applicants.

Family reunification? People seeking entry through family reunification typically have to wait extremely long periods — often up to 15 years or longer. And the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 made this even more difficult. This law says that those who entered without inspection, regardless of whether they are married to a U.S. citizen and/or have U.S. born children, cannot apply for Legal Permanent Residency (LPR) without first being banned from the country for 10 years.

Beginning to understand why undocumented immigrants risk being suffocated inside a cargo truck or dying of dehydration while trying to get across the desert to here?

If there was a way to “do it the legal way,” believe me, they would have at least tried. There isn’t.

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) provided a lifeline for Dreamers, who did not have any other option for gaining a path to legalization. The same is the case with Salvadorans who recently lost their Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Most of them have been living in the U.S. for more than 20 years.

Why would they continue to renew their TPS every two years and pay about $500 in processing fees per person each time if there was another way for them to apply and become legal permanent residents?

Right, you’re probably now saying this is a country of laws, and these must be obeyed. By everyone.

OK, but employers are giving jobs to undocumented workers. So, of course, immigrants come to fill those jobs. And the effects of the free market economy also displace workers from jobs in developing nations.

For example, after the elimination of tariffs due to NAFTA, agricultural workers in Mexico suddenly found themselves unable to sell their crops because the corn exported from the U.S. was selling for a cheaper price. So, people suddenly found themselves without jobs and no way to survive — due to U.S. policy.

These countries don’t have effective safety nets, such as unemployment benefits. Others face deep levels of poverty. Others need to emigrate to save their lives due to the high levels of violence from or extortion by drug dealers and gangs.

Yes, part of the IRCA law in 1986 included employer sanctions, making it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented workers. But, guess what? There has been very little enforcement of that in the last 32 years.

If this is a country of laws, why don’t employers set the example and follow the law?

These employers are hiring millions of undocumented immigrants and nobody calls them lawbreakers, much less “illegal employers.” That adjective — “illegal” — is reserved only for immigrants in the harsh anti-immigrant environment we now find ourselves in.

People who believe that today’s immigrants are lawbreakers because their ancestors followed the law and came legally should consider what would have happened if the current U.S. laws had existed when their ancestors wanted to come.

As with many immigrants today, back then many came without skills, were poor, and were escaping punishing economic conditions and war. They also would not have been able to qualify for legal documents.

So, please, stop asking, “Why don’t they just go to the back of the line?”

Let’s make it simple. Practically speaking, there is no line! Which is to say, there is mostly no way most undocumented immigrants can qualify for legal entry. They can’t successfully do it “the right way.”

The last time we had an amnesty program was through IRCA (the Immigration Reform and Control Act) of 1986.

I, along with another 3.5 million immigrants, was able to regularize my immigration status then. After that, a lot of wonderful life opportunities opened up for me. I was able to get my General Education Diploma (GED), attend a community college, transfer to a four-year university, and get my master’s and Ph.D. at an Ivy League university.

So, why not give the opportunity afforded by legalization — such as the one I had — to all the immigrants who have been satisfying the huge demand in the U.S. for unskilled labor?

The vast majority of these immigrants have been law-abiding, have been working very hard, and have already established their lives in the U.S.

Instead of criminalizing immigrants, we need to understand how, through bad immigration policy, the U.S. has created a huge population of second-class citizens who are now being used by corporations, legislators and our president for political and economic gain.

Nadia Y. Flores-Yeffal is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work at Texas Tech University. She is the author of the book, “Migration-Trust Networks: Social Cohesion in Mexican U.S.-Bound Emigration.”